HomeMy WebLinkAboutFoothills Unitarian Church Expansion - MJA210002 - Drainage Related Document DOCUMENT MARKUPS - ROUND 2 - 08/04/2021 ■■■■■■�
■■■■■■i
■■■■■■i
Fort Collins Utilities Redlines
Water,Wastewater&Stormwater
Thank you forth e opportunity to review these plans.
I encourage you to contact me to discuss questions&
PREPARED FOR: revisions prior to resubmitta L
■■■■■■iFOOTHILLS UNITARIAN CHURCH Reviewedby: MattSimpson
SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH,
RANGE 69 WEST OF THE 6th PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN
LARIMER COUNTY, • • ' ' •
FINAL■■■■■■I
DRAINAGE
■■■■■■I
■■■■■■I •
EROSION CONTROL
■■■■■■I
PREPARED BY:
BASELINE ENGINEERING CORPORATION
1950 FORD STREET
■■■■■■I
■■■■■■IGOLDEN, • : 141
■■■■■■IJune 18,
AN EMPLOYEE OWNED COMPANY
■■■■■■■■
1-1"'-'DASE LINE
■■■■■■■■
Engineering Planning Surveying
ENGINEER CERTIFICATION
"This report (plan)for the Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report for the "Foothills
Unitarian Church," was prepared by me (or under my direct supervision) in accordance with
the provisions of the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual and was designed to comply with
the provisions thereof. I understand that the City of Fort Collins does not and will not assume
liability for drainage facilities designed by others."
Noah I Nemmers
Registered Professional Engineer
State of Colorado No. 39820
OWNER CERTIFICATION
"(Owner/Applicant) hereby certifies that the drainage facilities for the "Foothills Unitarian
Church,"will be constructed according to the design presented in this report. I understand that
the City of Fort Collins does not and will not assume liability for drainage facilities designed or
reviewed by my engineer. I also understand that the City of Fort Collins relies on the
representations of others to establish that drainage facilities are designed and built-in
compliance with applicable guidelines, standards or specifications. Review by the City of Fort
Collins can therefore in no way limit or diminish any liability which I or any other party may have
with respect to the design or construction of such facilities."
(Owner/Applicant)
By:
Date:
2
Table of Contents
I. General Location and Description.........................................................................................................4
A. Location.............................................................................................................................................4
B. Description of Property.....................................................................................................................4
II. Drainage Basin and Sub-Basins.............................................................................................................5
A. Major Basin Description....................................................................................................................5
B. Sub-Basin Description.......................................................................................................................5
III. Drainage Design Criteria ...................................................................................................................6
A. Regulations........................................................................................................................................6
B. Hydrological Criteria .........................................................................................................................6
C. Hydraulic Criteria ..............................................................................................................................7
D. Waivers from Criteria........................................................................................................................8
IV. Drainage Facility Design....................................................................................................................8
A. General Concepts..............................................................................................................................8
B. Specific Details..................................................................................................................................8
C. Stormwater Storage Facility..............................................................................................................9
V. Erosion and Sediment Control..............................................................................................................9
VI. Conclusions.....................................................................................................................................11
A. Compliance with Standards............................................................................................................11
B. Drainage Concept............................................................................................................................11
VII. References ......................................................................................................................................12
VIII. APPENDIX........................................................................................................................................13
VICINTIY, FIRM &SOILS MAP
HYDROLOGICAL COMPUTATIONS
HYDRAULIC COMPUTATIONS
DRAINAGE DETAILS& PLANS
3
I. General Location and Description
A. Location
1. Township, Range,Section,%Section: The subject property is located in Section
22, Township 7 North, Range 69 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, Larimer
County, State of Colorado.
2. Local streets within and adjacent to the development with ROW width shown:
The parcel is bordered by W. Drake Road to the south, Yorktown Drive to the
west, Yorktown Avenue to the north and Constitution Avenue to the east, see
Appendix A for Vicinity Map.
3. Major drainageways, facilities and easements within and adjacent to the site:
The site lies in the Spring Creek Drainage basin and crosses Drake Road
approximately 800 feet East of the Foothills Unitarian Church expansion (Site).
4. Names of surrounding developments: The existing church is located within a
residential area. There are existing single-family residences located to the north,
west and east. The Georgetown Townhouse/Condos are located to the south.
B. Description of Property
1. Area in Acres: Property Area = 3.02 Acres
Tributary Pond Limits= 0.88 Acres
2. Ground cover: Ground cover on site currently consists of mature landscaping
which includes trees and shrubs along with established lawns.
3. National Resources Conversation Service (NRCS) soils classification: According
to the Natural Resources Conservation Service(NRCS)Soils Survey in Appendix A,
the project area is comprised mostly of soils in Hydrologic Soil Group B, which
consists of Altvan-Satanta loam complex soil. Calculations for composite "C"
factors are included in Appendix B.
4. Major Drainageways: The Site lies within the Spring Creek Drainage Basin in the
reach East of Taft Hill Road as identified by the Spring Creek Drainageway
Planning Study.
5. Floodplain: According to the Flood Insurance Rate Map Panel No.08069C0986G
dated 5/2/2012, the site is located with Zone X, an area of minimal flood hazard
(see Appendix)
6. General Project Description: The proposed Foothills Unitarian Church expansion
includes a new two-story addition at the southwest edge of the existing building.
There will also be new pedestrian connection to the existing parking lot located
on the west,and to the existing sidewalk along Drake. In addition to the proposed
expansion; there will also be ROW improvements along Yorktown Drive and
Yorktown Avenue which consists of new curb,gutter and sidewalk.
4
7. Irrigation facilities: There are no known irrigation facilities within 200 feet of the
site.
8. Proposed Land Use: Place of worship
II. Drainage Basin and Sub-Basins
A. Major Basin Description
1. On-site and off-site major drainage basin characteristic and flow patterns and
path: Historically the site drains into the surrounding road ROW and is tributary
to Drake Road.
2. Existing and proposed land uses within the basins if known: The existing
Foothills Unitarian Church will remain as a place of worship.
3. Discussion of all drainageway planning or floodplain delineation studies that
affect the major drainageways, such as FHAD Studies and Outfall System
Planning studies: There are no known drainageway planning or floodplain
delineation studies associated with the property.
4. Discussion of the condition of any channel within or adjacent to the
development,including existing conditions,need for improvements can impact
on the proposed development: Spring Creek is directly east of the proposed
development.
5. Discussion of the impacts of the off-site flow patterns and paths, under fully
developed conditions: Currently flow from off-site are captured with curb and
gutter and conveyed into the existing public storm sewer system within Drake
Road.
6. Identification of all irrigation facilities within the basin which will influence or
be influenced by the local drainage: There are no know irrigation facilities within
the basin which will influence or be influenced with the developed drainage
patterns.
B. Sub-Basin Description
1. On-site and off-site minor drainage basin characteristics and flow patterns
under historic and developed conditions: Based on the Final Drainage Study &
Erosion Control Report — Foothills Unitarian Church Expansion dated April 3,
1996; the property contains 4 basins (Al—A4). The proposed expansion
completely encompasses basin A3. Historic Basin A3 flows are currently
conveyed via surface flow into Drake Road and will outfall into the public storm
sewer system in the existing inlet directly south of the proposed expansion area.
Basin Al flows will remain unchanged with the proposed ROW improvements
along Yorktown Avenue, and outfall into the existing curb and gutter as it
currently does today. Basin A2 flow patterns will mimic historic and continue into
5
Drake Road. Basin A4 flow patterns will also remain unchanged and be captured
within the western parking lot detention area prior to outfalling into Drake Road
and ultimately Spring Creek via the public storm sewer system, see Appendix for
drainage map.
With the proposed building expansion, developed basin P1 will analyze the
historic basin A3 to determine the required detention volumes based on the
added imperviousness to the site.
Basin P1 is approximately 0.88 acres with an imperviousness of 39%. This basin
consists of the area contained within historic Basin A3 and also includes additional
pervious areas that include the proposed detention pond. The 2-yr runoff
coefficient is 0.28 and the 100-yr runoff coefficient is 0.61.
2. Existing and proposed land uses within the basins: The site currently is a place
of worship with mature landscaping and associated parking and walkways. The
proposed development will consist of a building expansion, and the primary use
will remain the same.
3. Discussion of irrigation facilities that will influence or impacted by the site
drainage: There are no known existing irrigation facilities that will be impacted
by the proposed development.
4. Discussion of the impacts of the off-site flow patterns and paths under fully
developed conditions: Under the fully developed conditions flows from within
the surrounding roadways will be captured with curb and gutter and ultimately
into Drake Road.
Removed
III. Drainage Design Criteria
A. Regulations
1. Discussion of the optional provisions selected or the deviation from the Reria,
if any, and its justification: Calculation methods used follow the provisio s set
forth in the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual
B. Hydrological Criteria
1. Identify design rainfall: The property lies in Larimer County Rainfall Zone I. Storm
Please review the Fort incremental precipitation determined by using the
Collins Stormwnter Criteria
Manual(FCSCM)hydrology
requirements in Chapter 5. 2. Identify runoff calculation method: The Rational Method was use determine
developed flow volumes for historic and developed conditions The Rational
Formula is Q= CIA, where Q, the maximum rate of runoff is eq I to the runoff
coefficient C,times the rainfall intensity(1),times the area (A).
Updated OF from
table 3.4-1 from the
6 FCSCM specific to
the rational method
3. Identify detention discharge and storage calculation method: Water quality and
stormwater detention is proposed to be provided within a newly proposed
detention pond. The proposed pond was evaluated using the FAA method and
designed to hold the required 100-yr storage volume including the WQCV for the
project.The required volume will be based on the additional impervious area.The
present in cubic existing impervious areas have been "grandfathered" in and this runoff can be
feet for this site passed through the pond. The required WQCV is 0.01 acre-ft. the total required
/5. Discussion
design storm recurrence intervals: Design storm recurrence intervals of
00-year events were examined in this study
and justification or other criteria or calculation method used that are
sented in or referenced by these the CRITERIA: All criteria and calculation
Updated to Cubics used are presented in or referenced by the Fort Collins Stormwater
Feet Manual.
The allowable release rate and required volume for a minor redevelopment of an
existing site that has no detention,will be based on the following;
a) Calculation for allowable release rate
a. 100-yr flows from existing impervious areas are grandfathered.
b. New impervious are require flows to be detained to the 2-yr historic
flow rate.
c. Calculate the 100-yr flow rate from all existing impervious areas onsite.
d. Calculate the 100-yr flow rate for pervious areas that will remain as
pervious.
e. Calculate the 2-yr release rate, for pervious areas to convert to
impervious. Assuming C-factor=0.2 for 0%impervious (historic).
f. Sum the flow rates calculated. This will be the max allowable release
rate for site.
b) Calculation for detention.
a. Calculate the free releases from site (100yr). Subtract from max
allowable release. This will be the maximum allowable release rate.
b. Perform FAA detention calculation using the "required detention
release rate" which will determine the required detention volume,
based on the mass balance method.
c. Use area and C factor for everything draining to the pond location.
C. Hydraulic Criteria
1. Identify various capacity references: The
401HM4@9 and the Fort Collins Stormwater C 'teria Manual were utilized in the
storm drainage design for the proposed velopment. See Appendix C for
hydraulics calculations of the storm sewe system for sizing details.
Removed
reference to the
USDCM
7
D. Waivers from Criteria
1. Provide justification for each waiver: No waivers are requested for the proposed
development.
IV. Drainage Facility Design
A. General Concepts
1. Discussion of concept and typical drainage patterns: The proposed Foothills
Unitarian Church expansion includes an addition at the southwest edge of the
existing building. There are no known drainage issues on the site with the
proposed expansion. Historically the drainage flows for the disturbed area based
on basin A3 flows across the property in West Drake Road right of way.
The pre-development flows for the site is approximately 0.20 CFS for the minor
event and 1.41 CFS for the major event. In the developed condition flows mimic
the historic flow patterns into the proposed water quality/detention pond at the
southeast portion of the site. The pond is will be fitted with an outlet structure
that will incorporate a water quality and 100-yr orifice plates in order to have
flows released at the allowable rate.
Post-development flows were determined to be 0.17 CFS and 1.36 CFS for the
minor and major event.
All drainage that occurs within the disturbance limits of basin P1 will be directed
into the detention pond by overland flow. Once in the pond, an outlet structure
will control release rates for both the water quality capture volume and 100-yr
storm event, while an emergency spillway accounts for events greater than the
1-hour, 100 yr storm.
2. Discussion of anticipated and proposed drainage patterns. Discuss how runoff
is conveyed off-site to nearest adequate drainage facility. Discuss flow path and
downstream capacity: The flows from the proposed expansion will be conveyed
overland to the proposed detention pond. The outlet structure includes a 15-inch
reinforced concrete pipe with a WQCV orifice plate and 100-yr restrictor plate.
The emergency spillway will include a concrete cutoff wall. The 15-inch outlet
pipe will tie into an existing storm inlet within West Drake Road right of way
Adjusted cific Details
1. Discussion of drainage problems encountered and solutions at specific design
points: There are no known drainage problems encountered and any design
points for the proposed development.
2. Discussion of detention storage and outlet design: The pond is designed per the
mass balance method in order to determine the required detention for
�000-sf developments adding o er 5000 sf of impervious areas. The pond is fitted with
an outlet structure that i corporates a water quality orifice along with a restrictor
plate on the outlet pipe that connects to the back of an existing storm inlet within
West Drake Road right of way.
8
C. Stormwater Storage Facility
1. Discuss detention pond designs, including release rates, storage volumes and
water surface elevations for the WQCV and emergency overflow conditions,
outlet structure design, emergency spillway design, etc: The proposed storm
drainage design for the expansion consists of a detention pond fitted with an
I think a table may be outlet structure that have controlled release with orifices. The property is
easier to present these approximately 3.02 acres with 0.88 acres of area that will be tributary to the
values. proposed pond.
Please present in a Required volumes are based on the total disturbed area of the property which is
table: 0.88 acres at 39%imperviousness which results in a required WQCV of 0.01 acre-
-trlb area to pond. feet and a required 100-year volume of 0.062 acre-ft. The total required 100-year
-existing Imperv. volume for the proposed development is 0.072 acre-ft which includes WQCV.
-proposed Imperv. The 15-inch RCP outlet pipe invert is at 5064.50. The developed WQCV WSEL=
5065.25 and the 100-year WSEL = 5066.75. The emergency spillway elevation is
-Change In I set to 5066.75 and the top of pond elevation = 5067.35. The freeboard provide
-allowable relleaseease rate is 0.6-feet. The 100-year allowable release rate for the site is approximately 1.29
-required detention CFS. There will no off-site flows that will not be detained in the detention pond,
volume and other therefore there will be no reduction in the allowable release rate. The location
detention parameters of the pond is ideal for events greater than the 100-year event due to its close
proximity to the existing storm inlet within West Drake Road.
2. Discuss pond outfall locations and design, including method of energy
dissipation: The pond outfall is located at the south end property where it ties
into the back of an existing inlet within West Drake Road right of way. A 10-foot
emergency spillway line which incorporates a 26-foot head line with soiled rip rap
are to be part of the spillway design.
Presented 3. Discuss how runoff is conveyed from all pond outfalls and emergency spillways
information in a to the nearest major drainageway, including a discussion of the flow path and
table. capacity downstream of the outfall to the nearest major drainageway: Runoff
from the proposed expansion will be conveyed into an existing storm inlet within
West Drake Road Road right of way,where it ultimately outfalls into Spring Creek,
directly east of the site. Based on the current historic flows and the allowable
release rate into the creek, there is no negative impacts of the flows from the
development into the creek.
V. Erosion and Sediment Control
A. General Erosion and Sediment Control Measures:
1. Minimizing Soil Exposure: When practical,the construction area and duration of
soil exposure should be kept to a minimum. All other areas should have a good
cover of vegetation of mulch. Grading should be completed as soon as possible
after commencement. revegetation will consist of seeding and erosion control
blankets.
9
Revised
2. Controlled Runoff Across Exposed fents.
: When practical construction may
include construction temporary swao intercept and direct storm water
around exposed areas.
3. Sediment Control: Temporary and/omanent sediment control devices may
be installed to intercept and trap sedi
B. BMP Selection: IThe City of Fort Collins rerquires
1. General: a four-step process for receiving
water protection that focuses on reducing runoff volumes, treating WQCV,
stabilizing streams and implementing long-term source controls.The Four Step
Process pertains to management of smaller, frequently occurring events, as
opposed to larger storms for which drainage and flood control infrastructure
are sized. Implementation of these four steps helps to achieve compliance with
stormwater permit requirements (i.e. City's MS4 permit). Added benefits of
implementing the complete process can include improved site aesthetics
through functional landscaping amenities that also provide stormwater quality
benefits.
Please document the ,ite BMPs: Due to the parameters of the proposed expansion and limited
require WQ treatment disturbance, a grass swale will be utilized as a permanent BMP Runoff will be
conveyed overland into the proposed grass swale prior to outfalling into the
area. This is the sum of detention pond.
the "new and modified Erosion Control Plan: The summary of erosion control measures consists of
impervious areas" with the following;
this project. a) Installation of silt fences along West Drake Road.
If this area is greater b) Installation of inlet protections to the inlets within West Drake Road.
than 1000-sf, then the c) Installation of rock socks on the curb and gutter around the property.
project will require d) Installation of seeding to all disturbed areas within the property.
quantity LID and Water e) Installation of erosion control blankets for areas of final grades that are
Quality treatment. 3:1 or steeper.
I think we will need a
meeting to go over the
WQ and LID
requirements.
Added information
about compliance
to LID
requirements
10
VI. Conclusions
A. Compliance with Standards
1. Criteria: To the best of my knowledge,the drainage design set forth in the plans
and specifications complies with the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual.
2. Major Drainageway Planning Studies: To the best of my knowledge,the drainage
design set forth in the plans and specifications complies with any Planning
Studies.
3. Manual: To the best of my knowledge,the drainage design set forth in the plans
and specifications complies with the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual.
B. Drainage Concept
1. Effectiveness of drainage design to control damage from storm runoff: The
proposed design provides two permanent BMPs by means of a grass Swale and
water quality/detention basin to promote infiltration for the proposed
development will provide the required volumes set forth by Fort Collins
standards.
2. Influence of proposed development of the Major Drainageway Planning Studies
recommendations(s): Current historic drainage patterns will be maintained and
an emergency overflow route from water quality/detention pond will convey
flows into West Drake Road right of way as it currently does today.There will be
no negative impacts downstream due to the runoff from the proposed
development.
11
Removed
VII. References
,
Denver, CO.
2. Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual, City of Fort Collins, December, 2018.
3. Final Drainage Study and Erosion Control Report- Foothills Unitarian Church
Expansion, Landmark Engineering, Loveland, CO,April 3, 1996.
12
VIII. APPENDIX
A. VICINTIY, FIRM & SOILS MAP
N
1
r'
PROJECT
LOCATION
W. DRAKE ROAD
0
Q
0
J
J_
LL
Q
C/)
0
a
M
N
M
N
O
M
V)
3
a
y
0
U
LEecxm BY Ixm.0 wBMinnL 06/23/21
WASELINE FOOTHILLS UNITARIAN CHURCH LBA XC BIIE er x
O BEC i1PM XX/xE LAZE
LL FORT COLLINS LARIMER COUNTY �,Ay,X BY eec xx/xz/zx
i .pB xo. CO}355
Engineering•Planning•Surveying LBAMXC X ME
TT
Ycin ity Map Ewg
M 1815 YORKTOWN AVENUE LxBy —E
V2 N PINEY DRIVE SURE 2V-GOLDEN COLOWO WOVICINITY MAP 1
z P.303.940.SSSS • P SIX{91QM • w»whBaefinemrpmn
National Flood Hazard Layer FIRMette Z, FEMA Legend
105°6'56"W 4093'26"N SEE FIS REPORT FOR DETAILED LEGEND AND INDEX MAP FOR FIRM PANEL LAYOUT
Without Base Flood Elevation(BFE)
Zone A.V,A99
IL SPECIAL FLOOD With BFE or Depth zone AE,AD,AN,VE AR
HAZARD AREAS Regulatory Floodway
0.2%Annual Chance Flood Hazard,Areas
- 1 of 1%annual chance flood with average
_ depth less than one foot or with drainage
• areas of less than one square mile zone x
1
Future Conditions 1%Annual
_ Chance Flood Hazard zone
i 1 OTHER AREAS OF Area with Reduced Flood Risk due to
Levee.See Notes.zone x
FLOOD HAZARD ��,d Area with Flood Risk due to Leveezone D
AREA OF MINIMAL .FLOOD HAZARD
nN�ssw sn
Zone��X NO SCREEN Area of Minimal Flood Hazard zone x
Q Effective LOMRs
0 OTHER AREAS Area of Undetermined Flood Hazard zene o
PROJECT LOCATION of Vsp
11 S� A�Y� GENERAL •---- Channel,Culvert,or Storm Sewer
STRUCTURES 1 1 1 1 1 11 Levee,Dike,or Floodwall
Cross Sections with 1%Annual Chance
` ovi is �j� t�•s Water Surface Elevation
- - Clty offO z(.an,QE Lit- e- - - Coastal Transact
-- 513— Base Flood Elevation Line(BFE)
U80102 , F�zo {�E Limit of Study
Jurisdiction Boundary
Coastal Transact Baseline
5053.5 FEET t OTHER _ Profile Baseline
s- FEATURES Hydrographic Feature
Q 5055.5 FEET
a ^^`` LL �FT Digital Data Available N
w
W W MAP PANELS UnmappedNo alData Available I
R to
H S i U UJI UU
W � p s
{` /w'�.1SP� twi FLrC�tOJVLL
) Y LL
�`^' F $�Zone AE ��.� Q The pin displayed on the map is an approximate
T1 �ja _ =tom point selected by the user and does not represent
NZOnu m/ �'�� an authoritative property location.
ill
�`Q\gC' PZ �tgiE u� to Zone r7i -1 F�
L This map complies with FEMA's standards for the use of
��� T7N R69W S27 ' digital flood maps if it is not void as described below.
c��ODWAY The basemap shown complies with FEMA's basemap
Zt��`AE accuracy standards
The flood hazard information is derived directly from the
authoritative NFHL web services provided by FEMA.This map
was exported on 6/3/2021 at 10:46 AM and does not
reflect changes or amendments subsequent to this date and
r time.The NFHL and effective information may change or
become superseded by new data over time.
I This map image is void if the one or more of the following map
elements do not appear:basemap imagery,flood zone labels,
legend,scale bar,map creation date,community identifiers,
105°6'18"W 40°32'S8"N FIRM panel number,and FIRM effective date.Map images for
0 250 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 et 1:6,000 unmapped and unmodernized areas cannot be used for
regulatory purposes.
Basemap:USGS National Map:Orthoimagery:Data refreshed October,2020
USDA United States A product of the National Custom Soil Resource
Department of Cooperative Soil Survey,
Agriculture a joint effort of the United Report for
n I ��� States Department of
\v� Agriculture and other La ri m e r County
Federal agencies, State
Natural agencies including the
Resources Agricultural Experiment Area, Colorado
Conservation Stations, and local
Service participants
FOOTHILLS UNITARIAN CHURCH
w
o .
0 �MMMMMMM 80 ft
June 3, 2021
Custom Soil Resource Report
Soil Map
490621 490630 490639 490648 490657 490666 490675 490684 49M 490702
40"33'12"N ; 41P 33'12"N
rz
♦ 4
•
�. APL -
Soil Map may not b,eavali t this sail
40"33'10"N 40'33'10"N
490621 490630 490639 490648 490657 490666 490M 490684 49M 490M
Map Sole:1:385 if printed on A landscape(11"x 8.5")sheet
N Meters
0 5 10 ZO 30
A r-e�
0 15 30 BD 90
Map projection:Web Mercator Comer coordinates:WGS84 Edge tics:Lr M Zone 13N WGS84
9
Custom Soil Resource Report
MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION
Area of Interest(A01) 8 Spoil Area The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at
Area of Interest(AOI) Q 1:24,000.
Stony Spot
Soils Very Stony Spot
0 Soil Map unit Polygons Warning:Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
Wet Spot
.w Soil Map Unit Lines Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause
p Other misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil
� Soil Map Unit Points 9 PP� 9 Y
Special Line Features line placement.The maps do not show the small areas of
Special Point Features contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed
V Blowout Water Features scale.
Streams and Canals
® Borrow Pit
Transportation Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map
Clay Spot 1-14 Rails measurements.
Closed Depression
0%/ Interstate Highways
Gravel Pit Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
N US Routes Web Soil Survey URL:
Gravelly Spot - _ Major Roads Coordinate System: Web Mercator(EPSG:3857)
® Landfill Local Roads Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator
Lava Flow Background projection,which preserves direction and shape but distorts
g distance and area.A projection that preserves area,such as the
d� Marsh or swamp . Aerial Photography Albers equal-area conic projection,should be used if more
Mine or Quarry accurate calculations of distance or area are required.
O Miscellaneous Water This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as
Q Perennial Water of the version date(s)listed below.
y Rock Outcrop Soil Survey Area: Larimer County Area,Colorado
+ Saline Spot Survey Area Data: Version 15,Jun 9,2020
Sandy Spot Soil map units are labeled(as space allows)for map scales
40 Severely Eroded Spot 1:50,000 or larger.
0 Sinkhole Date(s)aerial images were photographed: Aug 11,2018—Aug
Slide or Slip 12,2018
,o Sodic Spot The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were
compiled and digitized probably differs from the background
imagery displayed on these maps.As a result,some minor
shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident.
10
Custom Soil Resource Report
Map Unit Legend
Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI
3 Altvan-Satanta loams,0 to 3 0.4 97.8%
percent slopes
4 Altvan-Satanta loams,3 to 9 0.0 2.2%
percent slopes
Totals for Area of Interest 0.4 100.0%
Map Unit Descriptions
The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the
soils or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along
with the maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit.
A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more
major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named
according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic
class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils. On the
landscape, however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the
characteristic variability of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some
observed properties may extend beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class.
Areas of soils of a single taxonomic class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without
including areas of other taxonomic classes. Consequently, every map unit is made
up of the soils or miscellaneous areas for which it is named and some minor
components that belong to taxonomic classes other than those of the major soils.
Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the
map unit, and thus they do not affect use and management. These are called
noncontrasting, or similar, components. They may or may not be mentioned in a
particular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have properties
and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different
management. These are called contrasting, or dissimilar, components. They
generally are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the
scale used. Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas
are identified by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a
given area, the contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit
descriptions along with some characteristics of each. A few areas of minor
components may not have been observed, and consequently they are not
mentioned in the descriptions, especially where the pattern was so complex that it
was impractical to make enough observations to identify all the soils and
miscellaneous areas on the landscape.
The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the
usefulness or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate
pure taxonomic classes but rather to separate the landscape into landforms or
landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. The
delineation of such segments on the map provides sufficient information for the
development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, however,
11
Custom Soil Resource Report
onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous
areas.
An identifying symbol precedes the map unit name in the map unit descriptions.
Each description includes general facts about the unit and gives important soil
properties and qualities.
Soils that have profiles that are almost alike make up a soil series. Except for
differences in texture of the surface layer, all the soils of a series have major
horizons that are similar in composition, thickness, and arrangement.
Soils of one series can differ in texture of the surface layer, slope, stoniness,
salinity, degree of erosion, and other characteristics that affect their use. On the
basis of such differences, a soil series is divided into soil phases. Most of the areas
shown on the detailed soil maps are phases of soil series. The name of a soil phase
commonly indicates a feature that affects use or management. For example, Alpha
silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is a phase of the Alpha series.
Some map units are made up of two or more major soils or miscellaneous areas.
These map units are complexes, associations, or undifferentiated groups.
A complex consists of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas in such an intricate
pattern or in such small areas that they cannot be shown separately on the maps.
The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar
in all areas. Alpha-Beta complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes, is an example.
An association is made up of two or more geographically associated soils or
miscellaneous areas that are shown as one unit on the maps. Because of present
or anticipated uses of the map units in the survey area, it was not considered
practical or necessary to map the soils or miscellaneous areas separately. The
pattern and relative proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat
similar. Alpha-Beta association, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example.
An undifferentiated group is made up of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas
that could be mapped individually but are mapped as one unit because similar
interpretations can be made for use and management. The pattern and proportion
of the soils or miscellaneous areas in a mapped area are not uniform.An area can
be made up of only one of the major soils or miscellaneous areas, or it can be made
up of all of them. Alpha and Beta soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example.
Some surveys include miscellaneous areas. Such areas have little or no soil
material and support little or no vegetation. Rock outcrop is an example.
12
Custom Soil Resource Report
Larimer County Area, Colorado
3—Altvan-Satanta loams, 0 to 3 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: jpw2
Elevation: 5,200 to 6,200 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 13 to 15 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 48 to 50 degrees F
Frost-free period: 135 to 150 days
Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated
Map Unit Composition
Altvan and similar soils:45 percent
Satanta and similar soils: 30 percent
Minor components:25 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transacts of the mapunit.
Description of Altvan
Setting
Landform: Benches, terraces
Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope, tread
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Mixed alluvium
Typical profile
H1 -0 to 10 inches: loam
H2- 10 to 18 inches: clay loam, loam, sandy clay loam
H2- 10 to 18 inches: loam, fine sandy loam, silt loam
H2- 10 to 18 inches: gravelly sand, gravelly coarse sand, coarse sand
H3- 18 to 30 inches:
H3- 18 to 30 inches:
H3- 18 to 30 inches:
H4 -30 to 60 inches:
H4 -30 to 60 inches:
H4 -30 to 60 inches:
Properties and qualities
Slope:0 to 3 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Drainage class:Well drained
Runoff class: Low
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water(Ksat): Moderately high to high
(0.60 to 2.00 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 10 percent
Available water capacity:Very high (about 13.2 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3e
13
Custom Soil Resource Report
Hydrologic Soil Group: B
Hydric soil rating: No
Description of Satanta
Setting
Landform:Terraces, structural benches
Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope, tread
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Mixed alluvium and/or eolian deposits
Typical profile
H1 -0 to 9 inches: loam
H2-9 to 18 inches: loam, clay loam, sandy clay loam
H2-9 to 18 inches: loam, clay loam,fine sandy loam
H2-9 to 18 inches:
H3- 18 to 60 inches:
H3- 18 to 60 inches:
H3- 18 to 60 inches:
Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 to 1 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Drainage class:Well drained
Runoff class: Low
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water(Ksat): Moderately high to high
(0.60 to 2.00 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 10 percent
Available water capacity:Very high (about 27.4 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 1
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3c
Hydrologic Soil Group: B
Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
Nunn
Percent of map unit: 10 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
Larim
Percent of map unit: 10 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
Stoneham
Percent of map unit:5 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
14
Custom Soil Resource Report
4—Altvan-Satanta loams, 3 to 9 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: jpwf
Elevation: 5,200 to 6,200 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 13 to 15 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 48 to 50 degrees F
Frost-free period: 135 to 150 days
Farmland classification: Farmland of statewide importance
Map Unit Composition
Altvan and similar soils: 55 percent
Satanta and similar soils: 35 percent
Minor components: 10 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Altvan
Setting
Landform: Fans, benches, terraces
Landform position (three-dimensional): Base slope, side slope, tread
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Mixed alluvium
Typical profile
H1 -0 to 9 inches: loam
H2-9 to 16 inches: clay loam, loam, sandy clay loam
H2-9 to 16 inches: loam, fine sandy loam, silt loam
H2-9 to 16 inches: gravelly sand, gravelly coarse sand, coarse sand
H3- 16 to 31 inches:
H3- 16 to 31 inches:
H3- 16 to 31 inches:
H4 -31 to 60 inches:
H4 -31 to 60 inches:
H4 -31 to 60 inches:
Properties and qualities
Slope: 6 to 9 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Drainage class:Well drained
Runoff class: Medium
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water(Ksat): Moderately high to high
(0.60 to 2.00 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 10 percent
15
Custom Soil Resource Report
Available water capacity:Very high (about 13.7 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 4e
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e
Hydrologic Soil Group: B
Hydric soil rating: No
Description of Satanta
Setting
Landform: Structural benches, terraces
Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope, tread
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Mixed alluvium and/or eolian deposits
Typical profile
H1 -0 to 9 inches: loam
H2-9 to 14 inches: loam, clay loam, sandy clay loam
H2-9 to 14 inches: loam, clay loam,fine sandy loam
H2-9 to 14 inches:
H3- 14 to 60 inches:
H3- 14 to 60 inches:
H3- 14 to 60 inches:
Properties and qualities
Slope. 3 to 6 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Drainage class:Well drained
Runoff class: Medium
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water(Ksat): Moderately high to high
(0.60 to 2.00 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 10 percent
Available water capacity:Very high (about 27.4 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 2e
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3e
Hydrologic Soil Group. B
Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
Nunn
Percent of map unit:6 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
Larimer
Percent of map unit:4 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
16
B. HYDROLOGICAL COMPUTATIONS
These are design storms for an EPA SWMM analysis. Not for use Updated to Table
with rational method. Please remove from drainage report 3.4-1: OF for
Rational Method
Table RA-3: City of Fort Collins Desiqn Storm Incremental Precipitation for Area I
100 Year 50 Year 25 Year 10 Year 5 Year 2 Year
Time Intensity Increments Intensity Increm efts Intensity Increm ents Intensity Increm ents Intensity Increm efts Intensity Increm efts
(m in) (in/hr) (in) (in/hr) (in) (in/hr) (in) (in/hr) (in) (in/hr) (in) (in/hr) (in)
5 1.00 0 .08 0 .79 0 .07 0 .63 0 .05 0 .49 0 .04 0 .40 0 .03 0 .29 0.02
10 1.14 0 .09 0 .90 0 .07 0 .72 0 .06 0 .56 0 .05 0 .45 0 .04 0 .33 0.03
15 1.33 0 .11 1 .05 0 .09 0 .84 0 .07 0 .65 0 .05 0 .53 0 .04 0 .38 0.03
20 2.23 0 .19 1 .77 0 .15 1 .41 0 .12 1 .09 0 .09 0 .89 0 .07 0 .64 0.05
25 2.84 0 .24 2 .25 0 .19 1 .80 0 .15 1 .39 0 .12 1 .13 0 .09 0 .81 0.07
30 5.49 0 .46 4 .36 0 .36 3 .48 0 .29 2 .69 0 .22 2 .19 0 .18 1 .57 0.13
35 9.95 0 .83 7 .90 0 .66 6 .30 0 .52 4 .87 0 .40 3 .97 0 .33 2 .85 0.24
40 4.12 0 .34 3 .27 0 .27 2 .61 0 .22 2 .02 0 .17 1 .64 0 .14 1 .18 0.10
45 2.48 0 .21 1 .97 0 .16 1 .57 0 .13 1 .21 0 .10 0 .99 0 .08 0 .71 0.06
50 1.46 0 .12 1.16 0 .10 0 .92 0 .08 0 .71 0 .06 0 .58 0 .05 0 .42 0.03
55 1.22 0 .10 0 .97 0 .08 0 .77 0 .06 0 .60 0 .05 0 .49 0 .04 0 .35 0.03
60 1.06 0 .09 0 .84 0 .07 0 .67 0 .06 0 .52 0 .04 0 .42 0 .03 0 .30 0.02
65 1.00 0 .08 0 .79 0 .07 0 .62 0 .05 0 .39 0 .03 0 .28 0 .02 0 .20 0.02
70 0.95 0 .08 0 .75 0 .06 0 .59 0 .05 0 .37 0 .03 0 .27 0 .02 0 .19 0.02
75 0.91 0 .08 0 .72 0 .06 0 .56 0 .05 0 .35 0 .03 0 .25 0 .02 0 .18 0.01
80 0.87 0 .07 0 .69 0 .06 0 .54 0 .04 0 .34 0 .03 0 .24 0 .02 0 .17 0.01
85 0.84 0 .07 0 .66 0 .05 0 .52 0 .04 0 .32 0 .03 0 .23 0 .02 0 .17 0.01
90 0.81 0 .07 0 .64 0 .05 0 .50 0 .04 0 .31 0 .03 0 .22 0 .02 0 .16 0.01
95 0.78 0 .06 0 .62 0 .05 0 .48 0 .04 0 .30 0 .02 0 .21 0 .02 0 .15 0.01
100 0.75 0 .06 0 .60 0 .05 0 .47 0 .04 0 .29 0 .02 0 .20 0 .02 0 .15 0.01
105 0.73 0 .06 0 .58 0 .05 0 .45 0 .04 0 .28 0 .02 0 .19 0 .02 0 .14 0.01
110 0.71 0 .06 0 .56 0 .05 0 .44 0 .04 0 .27 0 .02 0 .19 0 .02 0 .14 0.01
115 0.69 0 .06 0 .54 0 .04 0 .42 0 .03 0 .26 0 .02 0 .18 0 .01 0 .13 0.01
120 0.67 0 .06 0 .53 0 .04 0 .41 0 .03 0 .25 0 .02 0 .18 0 .01 0 .13 0.01
06/2005
Larim er County Storm voter Design Standards 1 9
FORT COLLINS STORM WAFER CRITERIA MANUAL H ydrology Standards (Ch. 5)
4.0 SW M M
Table 4.1-2. Land Use-Percent Im pervious
Percent Im pervious
Land Use N
Residential
Urban Estate 3 0
Low Density 5 0 Updated this page
M edium Density 7 0 as well
High Density 9 0
Com m ecial
Comm a-cial 8 0
Industrial 9 0
Undeveloped
Open Lands,Transition 2 0
Greenbelts,Agriculture 2
Offsite Flow Analysis(when
Land Use not defined) 4 5
Reference: For further guidance regarding zoning classifications, refer to the Land Use
Code,Article 4.
For Final Plan (FP) subm ttals, im pervious values m ust be based on the proposed land surface types.
Refer to Table 4.1-3 for recom m eded percent im pervious values.
Table 4.1-3.Surface Type—Percent Im pervious
Percent Im pervious
Surface Type N
Hardscape or Hard Surface
Asphalt, Concrete 1 00
Rooftop 9 0
Recycled Asphalt 8 0
Gravel 4 0
Pavers 4 0
Landscape or Pervious Surface
Playgrounds 2 5
Lawns, Sandy soil 2
Lawns Clayey soil 2
Cltyof 4.1 Input Param Eters
/F�tf Page 11
Use the OF tables in the
FCSCM
'"ASELINE
FORMULA CELLS
=USER INPUT CELLS
PROJECT: Foot ills I In'tPrann Chi jrrh z
JOB NO.: CO3 Revised to match OF Project Location
CALC. BY: LTV Intermediary durations are y User Input
DATE: 6/23/accounted for, but not shown.
IDF Rainfall Data
Pi: 1-hour Rainfall Depths (inches)
Minor Storm Major Storm
Td 2-Year 100-Year
Minutes 0.30 1.06
5 1 1.02 3.60
10 0.81 2.87
20 0.59 2.09
30 0.47 1.66
40 0.39 1.40
0.34 1.21
0.30 1.07
LU 0.19 0.66
Equation 5-1 1=(28.5'P,)/(10+Td)"0786
1=rainfall intensity(inches per hour)
P, =1-hour point rainfall depth(inches)
Td=storm duration(minutes)
Reference:
1) Urban D ag nd Flood Control District-Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual Volume 1,2017
2) NOAA Atlas Volume 8,Version 2
htt ://hd .nws.no ov/hdsc/ fds/ fds map cont.html?bkmrk=co
removed and
added reference to
FDSCM
Baseline Engineering, 6/23/2021
Planning and Surveying C03355_SF2 SF3-Revised 2017 Standards
Removed T:Fo3355Uniar'anChurch BASELINE
3355
L
DATE:6/23/2 1 .._....
Impervious Percentages-from Urban Drainage ble 64
Paved 100% Land Use 0
Roofs 90% Land Use 0
Please check that these
Lawns,sandy soil 2% Land Use 0
match the FCSCM. noting
Historic flow analysis 1 2% Land Use 6 that C100=C2 X 1.25
SOIL TYPE: =FORMULA CELLS
=USER INPUT CELLS
EXISTING IMPERVIOUS AREA
Weighted Impervious and C V s Are (ac)
Lawm, fl
Basin Area(aC) Imp. Q Cs Cfd CrSo Pavetl R°ors sandy)+oil anHistoric I atysisl and Uce I land Use it U.J.i L. Use
A3-1 0.233 100% 0.84 1 0.86 0.87 1 0.90 0.23 i
EXISTING PERVIOUS AREAS TO REMAIN PERVIOUS AREA Updated sheet to use
Runoff Coefficients
Weighted Impervious and C Values Areas(ac)
Lawm,santlyl Historic flow provided by the FCSM in
Basin Area(ae) Imp. Cz Cs C,3 Cra3 Pa.aa R++r+ I i Lana Use land Us La
+oil +nalysisl
A3-2 0.518 2% 1 0.01 0.01 0.07 0.44 0.52 i table 3.2-2
EXISTING PERVIOUS AREAS TO CHANGE TO IMPERVIOUS AREAS
Weighted Impervious and C Values Areas(ac)
Lawn,S+ntly l Historic flow
Basin Area(aC) Imp. Cz Cy Cfp Cf p° Pav¢tl R°ofa q°II analyalal Land Us¢ Lantl Use 1-and!Use LaM Uu
A3-3 0.123 2% 0.01 0.01 0.07 0.44 I 0.12 I I
------------------- _________________1______________1_____--_______1________------1-----------1-------.--.1.--.--.--.-J.--.--.--.--.--
I I
DEVELOPED CONDITIONS
Weightetl Impervious and C Values Areas(ac)
LdwM.3dntlyi
Basin Anse(aG) Imp. Ci Cs Cfs Ctaa Pawtl I Roofs soil a.00 0.00 I CIO � 0.07 � 0.00
Pi 0.882 39% 0.28 0.31 0.37 0.61 0.03 0.34 0.52 I
-----------"---- -----------------1--------------1--------------1--------------'-----------1----------.1.-------------------.-----
I I I I I I
Baseline Engineering, 6/23/2021
Planning and Surveying COMPOSITE C VALUES-PROP C03355_SF2 SF3-Revised 2017 Standards
BASELINE STANDARD FORM SF-2 use the Tc calc
7. TIME OF CONCENTRATION SUMMARY methods from the Project: Foothills Unitarian Church
---- Job No.: C03355
Calculated By: LTV FCSCM Checked By: moaxxx roc
Date: 6/23/2021
SUB-BASIN INITIAL/OVERLAND TRAVEL TIME t. CHECK FINAL REMARKS
DATA TIME(ti) (tt) (URBANIZED BASINS) I tc
Basin i C5 AREA LENGTH SLOPE ti LENGTH SLOPE VEL. tt COMP. TOT.LENGTH So tc(Equation 6-5)
Ac Ft % Min Ft Cv % FPS Min t� Ft % Min Min
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16)
EXISTING IMPERVIOUS AREAS
A3-1 1.00 0.86 0.23 76 2.0 3.01 165 7 6.1 1.73 1.59 4.6 241 4.81 9.8 5.00
EXISTING PERVIOUS AREAS TO REMAIN PERVIOUS AREAS
A3-2 0.02 0.01 0.52 76 2.0 13.62 165 7 6.1 1.6 1.7 15.3 241 4.81 27.6 15.3
EXISTING PERVIOUS AREAS TO CHANGE TO IMPERVIOUS AREAS
A3-3 0.02 0.01 0.12 76 2.0 13.62 165 7 6.1 1.6 1.7 15.3 241 4.81 27.6 15.3
DEVELOPED CONDITIONS
P1 0.39 0.31 0.88 90 2.0 10.83 265 7 6.6 1.7 2.6 13.4 355 5.43 21.2 13.4
Equation 6-3 t;=((0.395(1.1-05)SQRT(L))/(So 0.33))
Equation 6-5 t (26-17i)+(Li/(60(14i+9)SQRT(So))) =FORMULA CELLS
=USER INPUT CELLS
NRCS Conveyance Factor K Table-Cv Value
Heavy Meadow 2.5
Tillage/Field 5
Short Pasture and Lawns 7
Nearly Bare Ground 10
Grassed Waterway 15 Updated to
Paved Areas and Shallow Paved Swales 20 FCSCM Time of
Concentration
Method
Baseline Engineering, 6/23/2021
Planning and Surveying TOC C03355_SF2 SF3-Revised 2017 Standards
Calculated By: LTV STANDARD FORM SF-3 Project: Foothills Unitarian Church
Date: 6/23/2021 Job No.: C03355
Checked By: xxxxxxxxxx STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM DESIGN Design Storm: 2-Year
2-Year 0.30 (RATIONAL METHOD PROCEDURE)
1-hour rainfall= =FORMULA CELLS
=USER INPUT CELLS
DIRECT RUNOFF TOTAL RUNOFF STREET PIPE
_ _ r m � �
BASIN (DZ w0 Lu Ou- Z ¢ c� _ = N z ¢¢ _ _ w a w � ��? ar, o -- Zu Oa -Z REMARKS
W a Q W W: jO ..A� U a Z dU .-ti'� UU Z dU O e �o W OJc W Z J _. W v
p p U - �' f4-- _ y m p 0 N a. >
LL a
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 (21 22
A3-1 0.23 0.84 5.0 0.20 1.02 0.199
A3-2 0.52 0.01 15.3 0.00 0.67 0.003
A3-3 0.12 0.01 15.3 0.00 0.67 0.001 Used to determine max allowable release rate
P1 0.88 0.28 13.4 0.24 0.72 0.174 Used as allowable release rate for WQCV
Baseline Engineering, 6/23/2021
Planning and Surveying Minor SF-3 C03355_SF2 SF3-Revised 2017 Standards
Calculated By: LTV STANDARD FORM SF-3 Project: Foothills Unitarian Church
Date: 6/23/2021 Job No.: C03355
Checked By: xxxxxxxxxx STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM DESIGN Design Storm: 100-Year
100-Year 1.06 (RATIONAL METHOD PROCEDURE)
1-hour rainfall= =FORMULA CELLS
=USER INPUT CELLS
DIRECT RUNOFF TOTAL RUNOFF STREET PIPE
r W
BASIN z w w ci O LL .z a c� __ � z ¢Q _ 2 rn a w v - p^. z LL O a -Z REMARKS
W a Q W Q a ? WQ UQ Z dU "'yg U U Z QU Oe W , W O e W Z Jam. W '"
p p D U - W-- _ `. N to p O y a >
LL a
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
A3-1 0.23 0.90 5.0 0.21 3.60 0.749 Used to determine max allowable release rate
A3-2 0.52 0.44 15.3 0.23 2.38 0.537 Used to determine max allowable release rate
A3-3 0.12 0.44 15.3 0.05 2.38 0.127
P1 0.88 0.61 13.4 0.54 2.53 1.356
Baseline Engineering, 6/23/2021
Planning and Surveying Major SF-3 C03355_SF2 SF3-Revised 2017 Standards
C. HYDRAULIC COMPUTATIONS
BASELINE Flow Summary
�yrLr�•Lyr� Project: Foothills Unitarian Church
Job No.: C03355
Calculated By: LTV Checked By: xx�0000rooc
Date: 6/23/2021
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Q2YR Q100YR
BASIN DESCRIPTION (CFS) (CFS)
A3-1 Flow rate from all existing impervious areas 0.199 0.749
A3-2 Flow rate for pervious area to remain pervious areas 0.003 0.537
A3-3 Flow rate for pervious area to convert to imperviousnes areas 0.001 0.127
Used to determine max allowable release rate for the site
Max Allowable Release Rate= 1.287
DEVELOPED CONDITIONS
Q2YR QIDOYR
BASIN DESCRIPTION (CFS) (CFS)
P1 Flow rate from developed conditions 0.174 1.356
- Free release flows off-site 0 0
Required Detention Release Rate= 1.287 CFS
This makes sense. I like the presentation here.
Please be sure to update these values as the
rational calcs change to match the FCSCM
Updated pjnew
calcs.
Baseline Engineering, 6/23/2021
Planning and Surveying Flow Summary C03355_SF2 SF3-Revised 2017 Standards
Water Quality Capture Volume, WQCV
USED TO DETERMINE WQCV
1. Determine the WQCV in Watershed Inches BASED ON UDFCD CRITERIA.
WQCV=a(0.9113-1.1912+0.781)
Where:
WQCV= Water Quality Capture Volume, watershed inches
a = coefficient corresponding to WQCV drain time
1 = Imperviousness (%/100)
Drain Time Coefficients
Drain Time (hrs) Coefficient(a)
12 0.8
24 0.9
40 1.0
Coefficient, a 0.80
Imperviousness, 1 39
WQCV= 0.14 watershed inches
2. Determine the required storage volume in Acre-Feet
V= (WQCV/12)A
Where:
V= Required Storage Volume, acre-feet
A= Tributary catchment area upstream, acres
Area,A 0.882 acres
V= 0.0104 acre-feet
V= 451 cubic-feet
Detention Volume - Mass Balance Method
Additional Detention for Development Adding Over 1000-Sf
Runoff Coefficient,C= 0.61
Frequency Factor,Cf= 1.25
Max Release,Qout= 1.287 CFS
Area= 0.882 ACRES
USED TO DETERMINE THE ADDITIONAL
Results REQUIRED VOLUME BASED ON FORT
Detention Volume Requirement(acre-feet) 0.072 COLLINS INCREASED IMPERVIOUS Updated
Detention Volume Requirement(cubic-feet) 3129 CRITERIA.
Rainfall Duration Rainfall Intensity 3 a Volume detained
(min) (in/hr) Q;�(cfs) Volume; (ft ) 4�c(cfs) Volume..,(ft ) (acre-feet)
5 9.96 6.67 2000.40 1.29 386.23 0.037
10 7.74 5.18 3109.05 1.29 772.46 0.054
15 6.52 4.36 3928.49 1.29 1158.69 0.064
20 5.61 3.76 4506.92 1.29 1544.92 0.068
25 4.97 3.33 4988.95 1.29 1931.15 0.070
30 4.52 3.03 5446.87 1.29 2317.38 0.072
35 4.08 2.73 5736.08 1.29 2703.61 0.070
40 3.74 2.50 6001.19 1.29 3089.83 0.067
45 3.45 2.31 6242.21 1.29 3476.06 0.064
50 3.23 2.16 6483.22 1.29 3862.29 0.060
55 3.03 2.03 6700.13 1.29 4248.52 0.056
60 2.86 1.91 6892.94 1.29 4634.75 0.052
65 2.71 1.82 7085.75 1.29 5020.98 0.047
70 2.59 1.73 7278.56 1.29 5407.21 0.043
75 2.48 1.66 7471.37 1.29 5793.44 0.039
80 2.38 1.59 7640.08 1.29 6179.67 0.034
85 2.29 1.53 7808.78 1.29 6565.90 0.029
90 2.21 1.48 7977.49 1.29 6952.13 0.024
95 2.13 1.42 8122.10 1.29 7338.36 0.018
100 2.06 1.38 8290.81 1.29 7724.59 0.013
105 2.00 1.34 8435.41 1.29 8110.82 0.007
110 1.94 1.30 8580.02 1.29 8497.05 0.002
115 1.88 1.26 8700.53 1.29 8883.27 -0.004
120 1.84 1.23 8845.13 1.29 9269.50 -0.010
SELINE REQUIRED VOLUME SUMMARY
Project: Foothills Ungarian Church
Job No.: C03355
CalcUated By: LTV Checked By: mpouopax
Date: 6/23/2021
REQUIRED REQUIRED
TOTAL AREA PERCENT VOLUME VOLUME
DESIGN EVENT (ACRES) IMPERVIOUS (FTC) (ACRE-FT)
WQCV 0.88 53.00% 451 0.010
100 YR DETENTION 0.88 53.00% 3129 0.012
Baseline Engineering, 6/23/2021
Planning and Surveying VOLUME SUMMARY C03355_F-Collins Rational Method Spreadsheet
PROJECT: Foothills Unitarian PROJECT LOCATION: Fort Collins DATE: 6/23/2021
PROJECT NO.:C03355 BY: LTV
Provided Volume
Contour Area 113(Al +A2+ Total Volume Total Volume (ac
Stage(ft) Elevation (ft 2) (A1A2)112)D (ft3) ft)
(ft)
0.00 5064.75 0 0.0 0.000
0.25 5065.00 1,000 83 83 0.002
1.25 5066.00 2,012 1,477 1,560 0.036
2.25 5067.00 2,360 2,184 3,744 0.086
2.60 5067.35 3,470 1,014.0 4,757.9 0.109
Area Volume Volume
WSEL Depth(ft) (ft2) (ft) (ac-ft)
WQCV= 5065.25 0.50 1,253.00 452.54 0.010
EURV=
2-yr=
5-yr=
10-yr=
100-yr= 5066.75 2.00 1 2,273.00 3,197.92 0.073
=FORMULA CELLS
=USER INPUT CELLS
Extended Detention Basin
Outlet Structure Orifice Sizing
1. 100-yr Orifice(using orifice equation)
a. Use Orifice Equation to solve for orifice diamter
Q= C.AV2gh
Where:
Q= flow rate or allowable discharge, cfs
C"= orifice coefficient,typically 0.61
A= cross-sectional area,ft2
g= gravitational constant, 32.2 ft/sec2
h = water surface elevation minus elevation of centroid of orifice,ft
Q= 1.29 cfs
Co= 0.61 dimensionless
h = 2.00 ft
A= 0.186 ft2
orifice diameter= 5.84 inches
USE=1 5.75 linches
2.WQCV Perforated Orifice
a. Determine the required area per row of orifices
a= WQCV
0.013DWg2+0.22DWQ o.io
Where:
A.= Area per row of orifices spaced on 4" centers, in
WQCV= Water Quality Capture Volume or"Volume", acre-ft
DWQ= Depth of volume,ft
V= 0.010 acre-ft
DWQ= 0.50 ft
a= 0.043 in per row or from Figure EDB-3
b. Determine diameter of circular perforations
Ao= 0.049 in2 per row
Diameter= 1 0.250 inches
c. Determine number of columns
Number of Columns= 1 from Table 6a-1
d. Round Orifice Diameter to nearest 1/16 inch
Area per Perforation = 0.049 in
Diameter per Perforation = 0.250 inches
Actual Perforation Diameter= 1/4 inches user input(round to nearest 1/16th inch)
Actual Area per Perforation = 0.049 in
Actual Area per Row= 0.049 in per row
Minimum Steel Plate Thickness= 1 1/4 inches from Figure 5
Diameter Conversion from decimal to architectural
0.0625 1/16
0.1250 1/8
0.1875 3/16
0.2500 1/4
0.3125 5/16
0.3750 3/8
0.4375 7/16
0.5000 1/2
0.5625 9/16
0.6250 5/8
0.6875 11/16
0.7500 3/4
0.8125 13/16
0.8750 7/8
0.9375 15/16
1.0000 1
e.Trach Rack Opening Width
Max Diameter of Perforations= 0.250 inches
DWQ= 2.00 ft
of Trash Rack per Column of Holes= 3 inches user input from Table 6a-1
Total Trash Rack Opening Width = 3 inches
Total Trash Rack Height= 26 Pnches
Trash Rack Design Specs= use Table 6a-2
�. . Z-z - oPc
.G .._ :. c d Zs
Pieo/v�E-,o �/"lipl/l.Ar�s °� = I:l�Za9 iT? . =0,9✓r
o.9Sl67aB)t0,z y'<Zo,6Z9 D-
W W W , 'G•9S!-/�ia�9)tCo•LS7/�o/��7/
-
�,
'00
Nnr G = O.Z O (.Z7, �i69yA-�..,.C�.a/,25
. � �._._.......�.__. T� -.ter<..-.iy.g. �•,�_ .-.. �:_�_-�..T:.. -.___��_.. _-- -t-�-__. . -
.. _ .,Gz� Z,J3• i:v/tee- - - - .. ._.�... -- __.._.. -- --- --- �-----•--- . ..•c,,o •�.3.7,5-�h./yam .._.�.
Qz yR -O. Z.x:Z./3 Y.
_ . . . •-Q,ro;.rr._= O,�7: x 3,�5."r o �3=_.O/_9.9. .: •t� � .. '_... . . . -
.. Q�arr yr_=(/,ZS),x.Q.Nz�G,ZP�,D.63--.Z.oB- c�3' :..,__._.. i__�., .._. •
Qiv yx = O,5�t x 3,J3 o,G s=.L•28. � .
QI�D .G ?�%Z✓�'�G.Z�'KO,G3.=.Z.
his unofficial copy was downloaded on Jun-18-2021 from the City of Fort Collins Public Records Website:http://citydoes.fegov.com
or additional information or an official copy,please contact City of Fort Collins Utilities 700 Wood Street Fort Collins,CO 80524 USA
D. DRAINAGE DETAILS & PLANS
Lm FXHIB T A - DRAINAGE PLAN
Dtrf4TK«to40 aYa.ar
M ouc wa-m x++an
City of Port Collins, Colorado .aLarow tw,a n GRAPHIC SCALE
UTILITY PLAN APPROVAL Imwav v.aM lr ,. A o°
Imw wwrr mw ts'
APPROVED
m
YI[b1 II 0111ol((���U 0.1• pr rpr
CgECK110BY ___ _ __-�Jps_SQ 6__ __ ___
_ -
WICKED BY. _�.�i.,,.8• O om r^ -^...•^a-^mac-sx=3¢ - =`✓'r= a.=r�..---=n•.: _ -____-__^_- __-- _-y-
____ _ _ ___ _ _ __ __ ____ _ _ _ ._W_ ---
N-JA•`/{ ~ „S•'w^ - --- - «! - •-- W-.-^_ _py. 04 YNIr10LC W W K
[ I V7
CHECKED BY: Hh ,-- ,„t'r —�— YORKTOWN AVENUE w.wre 1.
t«a A an...u.. ROW aY[ei.w•u si /
CHECKED BY ��3 I __.--------------r.,,------- 80 F---__--__I-----__--_r o.•________B�______ _____ ___.f____ _______
r-'
r
r •-•.+i'rr ram^;^ ' /r iCUO r]11[W1
CHkCKED dy
'.' _ _____-st�Sa j1i - ' ---' ---- I c+nn lc oo4ntl[ / _ __1/
`CW4.WTIrS Stt'CWµK
- - , •s 1 i=: - i�•if ieF �fftrl�i
�- •ram• m, i :�,�,m iiaf af�iYd•trr-�ii'fn,F�'IYIs I "�-Id"�K•iB=� - \ 8
^ Vs'l'I r.4. .1 1'-•"��ti ��' •ile�u+l0�-s(' .. 6w0[rl"l �� " \` ` , ``a �_ %- /
:4 p:,n, c I / ♦ i 1\ / I .. I I /r ! / L r r`, r' = 0
fLr/ / r r / / / '. � � p nR
} • '� A.w ' �r 9os� "�. . f°� ) f II' �r f = _ \ t • .1 ! /ff [�}^@ � SQ.es ley bZ AlAi-29,45 FT? �\ Z N ySoa
r- - saP�]+'• �' / - w I 1 /'. A]r11.'T r#-14
..�.I rti♦ ___ _ __ _-•.-�•.. ..r \ \ Q
r i� � on I _ /E } - =-- :r.:.:?S:^`'^- ` i i I /f •+0:f ''' •. 2 B
�. '�-• --r__iuioG10 coin&==:h \ f< \ \ a \ L'� % \ I W z
n.e5]o,o• - yM� �.r , •�::_-_•• :svaarrraa4•: 1 ! I f `'\ \ \ \ u \ \ ,•\
,.la oo n `��;2:::;::.___•-:-_: _=:c�4r3fi: '1 . •a \ '�, a ,\ oaul.ac wwParr \1.�\ ` g s-
[ e 1 •
d - a•i�idok;-:f - - _:__ / i•^S[p I j\ . a ♦ Qa.row[•.t t w.�E.so a l
- _. - • IMWf �-_-_:`-JDUN-.. -_"__ _ __ / tarl Nii.l f ��SMt. ` _`\
A 1,280 Q. FT, :_-:::•}::.__ s I f I .M.•- 1tra. � �a.�.�.� �r�c�:�•f>• fs t s,
J £
r. '�i5 • l '-i- •:=:__:. _ / 1 Iyf �/ ♦- NS ` i�- /
i
at4a n,a[ / [ji r2 rr attrtf rppl�0 - y�( \. ! I .1\• i h J� / !.L' L L r % r / r I u ee
n t aaatr$at I gaa.PeK(m) 77 , '-•_S�IE AA9 `` f/ �,n iL 1 ••�✓ L I { ¢ a `�
tur r falA it a`♦ r , .\�\ IT tls tllsrae/enp.c ��\ /f �/f�'s/�•-`\ \ J `�+. �.\\\ /• Td YeIO erellAR / •� / ' y�N� Tt s
- 71M.
II 1 I A 56�Q FT. TA']N '4 a f`f \j V \ , `\ t>t \ 7 1R�' } p5 W n
\��� w�� W '� 1
cc
II I t' t1 coIA r.N. I �• \, {/'
ti• 3S ^1� /f, \ j�•i _� ro eE a4o.co✓n.c ftcc'. '
swl„r1<, ( , 'Ji\ v !� / .♦ "...c INK——c
\ ♦ /
LsltCr01[4a �I/ ftiflrgTu;p [r• f \ T •\ / I,4cuCt
I1 II I •5 / \ wsvawr+w '• / / �.awoWtt '••r [ �•. , 1 �'( \ KD u DATE
�/ II 1 / n4.ni'om. �- ` � � \ � WST�w� /!/ raA rGKW4D y(!- _ •1 )• � / ,T\ rEB 1996 t
N I //. \ /< < •! 1 ./ l a sCAtE 1'.20'
3 P 1 f/f L // — I
O
�Z lI I // / / / // \ 1Dri• �:, / / r Ls ,c %f I /I end EEE6
13 i I /f� ff f f \ \ "oo`.. 1 - r I •RKa� -ZJ. ((f f f+:3W6LQ� /, ! 1
K0,7- •Ilw°t°
wn+ / AY 43 889 SQ. F
oc T. I
Wr.T N on M f
s[tf°.a�lirtnuK.\wv.si� / •�:l '[ � E
I 6 I I !f/ff f //ff�fff�//��f �f / f//f �aw.�w �prr¢. _- �:• f 't, . / l/ [I � a !
II 1 ffff /// /%ffffff%ff/!/Tf•/f 1 I T" _�:: ::=: E � „J``♦ t 1 t
`
II ; ff// fff y fay ///f�/f/�!.. I --'t - Flo w�-� --.�^- ;.I'a ` (• 1• ■oor o.m4Nlo : .[I %, sroc.ro met - ream rt xte.R ,o V 7 ffI
-
1`\ - - ]I •-� d off— e+o.r,�f��t � �-s �-� �—�,ff f� f� a �-s li• -
OMWY.Ln C[ ��. -•^ r•.�� Rc<i iNWSfM.':o
+• °s. \�`>�-Lar a.!(__-IrR- __ _:t,Tt= - :.[.___-'-- ^t-•. ___� -----o-''- ___ -___ --�"Z-=c r..
Teol Wts ^ MOr05[e a'Y.t{ YlU !r 'b p Z 4�
. �•erwo 4w.+I '�. .. K1,(O![ [..b.4 - ^- [ p,[g1[t[ r.('fi 1 ll''""'' Q e
g Mfb•VI ^d°^„ ..,` W c»a•n (Mlfµ� N un a reMt C4Saa IY,[s�e 1 R'Ke/WfrEa/S�OL'YNX -"• -..__. nsn4e aKR N
•• Y •[ arty piMoi •a•iI:CPITe[w irh �1TWtci, Q
\ Tnsmle r.T[II (n a F �
- bI
m t na+r IYi tawr[•[ KYDAaooc ummy TA91j
as •-- I-
TuS1710 a.f U Z L
( S4e-e.l4S
Al 4] .7 . InsnNf,6kaKAo C[SCT,IE 3
St
m 1 IIttY%.MWR, tN ,x aN AM Cit IxSnrp Y'.CR aS4N0UT =I Q
a r DRAKE ROAD m noanwre.nr .. .Y .« Ln gas'. � �H �.
ENGINEERING DEPT NOTE I nHYrp ,. la s. .a 1 a
I unyvp In Ia .n I. Tmtno4 WkM TO at AWN
k THIS REPRESENTS THE - n� «� is „l T �o
BEST QUALITY IMAGE POSS18LE f a
TAKEN FROM VERY POOR OLIALITY °""1M"a�"1D"a
ORIGINALS sroa.a
_ - - Na.
- - ------_ � _-___-_'-�_-_-_•__-__--_-_�� _:___ _ sleAD 45L i
8 240' — — — — — — — — —100 YEAR r1000[OE'V-'OPED[ONDITIONI AN s057—
— — —3
ice:
DRAINAGE PLAN PROPERTY BOUNDARY W
IX.LOT
FOILLS T V�1� ■ii+■ CHURCH — PROPOSED EASEMENT
OTH c
W CHURCH - ER.EASEMENT � e
LOCATED IN SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE 6th PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN ■NIMMIMIN■ DEVELOPED DRAINAGE BASIN W c �
CITY OF FORT COLLINS, LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO — -5900- — IX.MAJOR CONTOUR ;
----5901---- IX.MINOR CONTOUR
PROPOSED STORM SEWER MAIN
sT IX.STORM SEWER MAIN ggg
--------- DEVELOPED FLOW PATH
--I DEVELOPED FLOW DIRECTION&SLOPE c
SANITARY SEXIER MH
1 DESIGN POINT DESIGNATION
YORKTOWN AVRNOR\\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ e > s > s x
' - ( �76/ \ S / R.50.W. 1`L 1`V 1\ a' 0 1' A=DEVELOPED BASIN ID x
A B=DEVELOPED BASIN AREA(ACRES)
-78' C=DEVELOPED 100YR COEFFICIENT
5'UTILITY EASEMENT
/ BOOK 1391 AT PACE 283 -------,--- ---��---- �----�� IV--1----mac__-�____ � - - D=DEVELOPED 5YR COEFFICIENT �
/ REC NO.951667 -- - --
ilk
ply \J 1 1 l
EX BLOG
FFE 57?9Nk / \\J _-- / i P / // III s'unun EASEMENT
BOOK 1391 AT PAGE 283
o \ \ \ ♦ \ 'E�..�..E�.. / /� \ / / JST /'�` it I REC NO,951667 =
\ \ �" I: 10� \\\ ♦�\6y�, �, \\\\ \ \� / / b / / t III a
R.O.W./ __--' EMER�GEN�CY \�\ j� ♦ \\ \ /� � \ \ O / \ - I� DEVELOPED RUNOFF SUMMARY o
n� ACCESS ESMT. I \ 1 \ / /'/ , ����.\\\ 1N/ // /'// /// \\ II �IDN PWNT (ACRES) (MIN) IMPERVIOUSNESS CI CiMI (CFSf (CFSf In
/ P \ (BY SEPARATE J J F ♦ \ /� ` / / / J P
�I .k. DOCUMEN» \ \\ l // @�'�' \ / �� /93. // �— \ I II P1 1 0.88 13.40 39S 0.28 0.81 0.17 1.J6
PROPOSED BASIN\�
FLOW PATH �\ \\\��1�/ CONST.DETENTION POND
`\ ��\ / P1 „/-\ \ \ , /� TOP-5067.35
0.6128 SPILLWAY-5086.75 /// /
d BOTTOM-5064.75
/ PROPOSED_-_, \ D / \ \ , I w
SWALE �\ � J / / \ y (RECIB)
DRAINAGE EASEMENT \ _ —�/ / / /, �. .�.� � \\\\-- —//
/ \ / REC NO.96045054 a — PROPOSED — _ .61 / I
—T TT / _
(t0267 SQ FT) -�\ / { I SWALE
69 �-69 1 _ of
� �._ --- ♦ I �, _ — 1.25— — �6&67-66 .5065/
c I D —5070-CG�°' -----69.----_i
ST Sf ST ST ST ST ST ST Sf ST ST sr T1 ST ST of Q
NPROPERTY BOUNDARY S70RM SEWER INLET fK STORM INLET :% 15'RCP 0 O.SS OUOUTLETTURE FAIERGENCY \ _ % ~ p
SPILLWAY&HEADWALL \` %' Z p
n EX.36"RCP STORM SEWER (RE;C1g) EX. 36"RCP d
6; STORY SEXIER MH -- STORM SEWER
N BASIS OF,T 7 NGS _J m
S.LINE SW 14 SEC,22,T 7N,R69W,6hl PM l0O' J �
Wm DR=ROAD R.O.W. _
(100'RDW) (]
0
a
N
0
MLLYAIFD Uxovt 1x[PMEcr
GRAPHIC SCALE HMFnNMCN a
g DEVELOPED DRAINAGE PLAN 30 0 30 60 y
G DING 2 DING 2 (IN FEET) Cv
0 1 INCH=30 FT
fUR IID a BF11Mf a
aAvx�c maaR�nax
ixmK swm— xx/xx/xx
MANNO 8E 24°%.I6°
lMYEY FlRY 2019E
o , BEC 11 11/20/
2019
Know what's below. ,o.xa cosass
N , Cal before you dig. °"'o GM..n.9
n s� 2 a 2
0
DNG 2
>
DRAINAGE PLAN PROPERTY BOUNDARY W
EX.LOT LINE Z
FOOTHILLS UNIT' ��1�1��
CHURCH EX EASEMENT c x
EX.DRAINAGE BASIN � e cS
LOCATED IN SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE 6th PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN — -5900- EX.MAJOR CONTOUR W c
y
- - CITY OF FORT COLLINS, LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO --5901-- EX.MINOR CONTOUR
ST EX.STORM SEWER m
- - EX SANITARY SEWER MN
-- ---�-- HISTORIC FLOW PATH ` `t
\,!\`MUM
�R \/ \ \) 5 \\ 50' \\ \\) \ \\\ \\\ \\\ � EX.FLOW DIRECTION&SLOPE
RO
' / /•---_78—� I //���16 /hp05/ / AAA !/ R.O.W_A`L 1p�p
!/Tg DESIGN POINT DESIGNARON p c
� 5'UTILITY EASEMENT __ - -
/ BOOK 1391 AT PAGE 667 - ------ ------- ----
____-_-»,- \ __----/, 1----\c
_ v-- - ---`---- � A=HISTORIC BASIN ID
/ REC N0.951667 _-- _ _ \ \ - �� \\ \ \�` �- --- \ � I
B=HISTORIC BASIN AREA(ACRES) m > 6 > pS®
\ �!�-77---''' �'��/ ,�g''�// �� < ♦>� \\ \\\ \ \\ \\\ \\ \\ \ I ^ B U C=HISTORIC 100YR COEFFICIENT b 5 x
D=HISTORIC 2YR COEFFlCIENT
I ins\ / � ♦ \\ \ \\ \\ \\ \\ 1/ � i I I
I \
j 1 II O, EXBIDO \\ j / / / /// Ip II - a
/ ro
`_ J 11 1\ \ • FFE AMs'unun EASEMENT a
BOOK 1391 AT PAGE 283
REC NO,951667
Row- -' -74
PROPOSED \ \� \ •\ \ \ A3
--+ EMERGENCY IACCESS ESMT.
(BY SEPARATE /�// l�� \�N � // \\ Cl
I
DOCUMENT) \ \,� // @� �,'�4♦ !! / \\\ ."13 i �� I \ I I
IX BASIN FLOW PATH,
l } J
DRAINAGE EASEMENT - 6b''
REC N0.96045054 ) 9 I I . .--. \�\ �� ��� 61-' /i I
(10,267 SQ.FT.) =�� ,y / �_-- I
♦4 -71-- E __ ''
p —500-Cd— �� —
0 � a
ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST S1 ST ST ST ST ST _
PROPERTY BOUNDARY STORY SEWER INLET fX.STORM INLET
g 3 g
STORY SEWER MH
%'
EX 36"RCP STORM SEWER EX 36"RCP
-- STORM SEWER
S.LINE SW 148�SES.22,,T 7�N,�R69W,6TI PM iOO, Z = a
WNSf DLUE ROAD R.O.W. ¢ a
(100'ROW) Q z
a f_ ¢
NZYo
K
N J m M
J � s
nGRAPHIC SCALE HISTORIC DRAINAGE PLAN 30 0 30 60 1
DNG 1 DNG 1 (IN FEET) O
�c 1 INCH=30 FT Q
c� yR�l
z
o
N J
M
U
H
Z
O
NLLYII®UXLER 1XE OIXEIT
HRFXN9d Ci
y
\
.2
rm,vo ax BFxwr a
a�vE�c rnaa�nax
IN—a9XTIK xX/XX/XX
MANNO 8E 24°X M'
lMYEY FlRY 2019E
o , BEC 11 11/20/
2019
Know what's below. ,o.xa C.-
Cal I before you dig. 335MGM..n.9
n sFET 1 a 2
0
DNG 1
UTILITY PLANS W
z
FOOTHILLS UNIT' CHURCH Z g
J. p
LOCATED IN SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE 6th PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN W
CITY OF FORT COLLINS, LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO
Q � �
W
W PLATE-18' 28'
HEADWALL
TOP OF BERM=5067.35 W CONC=12' c
TOP=5066.75
70P OF STRUCTURE=5066.75 el i 5'��S' 10' 3' 't�5' BERM EL=5067.50
e•
4. 3. c
+ SPILLWAY EL=5066.75 6 6 S
100 YR WSEL-5066.75 �3 el le y i Q x
_
x TOP HOLE-5065.54 BURIED RIPRAP J J g
— GRATE —— aEMERGENCY SPILLWAY=5066.75 NOTES*.
4'of to BOLTS 8' If MAX SPACING 1. CONCRETE CUTOFF WALL SHALL BE 3'DEEP,8'THICK,AND
OUTLET RESTRICTOR PLATE 1 COLUMN OF E%TEND 5'INTO THE EMBANKMENT ON EACH SIDE OF THE
(SEE DETAIL) 4•el le (3)1/4'HOLES O 4'OC SPILLWAY. o
C C e 2.RIPRAP SHALL BE TYPE H,MEDIAN SIZE 18'.
4 TTOM HOLE INVERT/PCND BOTTOM/BOX BOTTOM m
=5064.75 3.MINIMUM RIPRAP VADTH SHALL MATCH TOP WIDTH OF SPILLWAY.
HOT DIPPED GALVANIZED 15'RCP
WQCV WSEL=5065.25 8' STEEL PERFORATED WATER OUTLET PIPE 4.BURIED RIPRAP SHALL EXTEND 14'FROM THE CUTOFF WALL a
QUALITY FLOW CONTROL a
PLATE.SEAL ALL EDGES DOWN THE EMBANKMENT AS SHOWN ON THE DRAINAGE PLAN w
PLATE
WIT .SEAL A OR AND BE INSTALLED PER DETAIL 5 ON THIS SHEET. a
SILICONE CAULK BEAD
D.S.FILTER WELL-SCR
2 WATER QUALITY OUTLET DETAIL 4 EMERGENCY SPILLWAY DETAIL
STEEL WELLSSCREEN•
(OR EQUAL) C9 C9 NOT TO SCALE C9 C9 NOT TO SCALE
BOX BOTTOM=5064.75
15'RCP OUTLET PIPE
INVERT=5064.50
CBX18.75 PMERICAN STANDARD STRUCTURAL z
STEEL CHANNEL FORMED INTO CONCRETE BOTTOM a a
AND SIDES OF 6'WIDE CONCRETE OPENING. /J
rc
TRASH RACK ATTACHED BY INTERMITTENT WELDS. a a a d STAKE BLANKET TO o
TOPSOIL LAYER AND SEED AND MULCH GROUND BETWEEN STONES
AS REQUIRED BY PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS zo
EROSION CONTROL BLANAKET
AS SPECIFIED OR CALLED FOR
ON THE PLANS �
FINISHED GRADE
iQ'MIN. z
Section A-A DESIGN RIPRAP GRADE 1 �
\ SOIL RIPRAP.
WELL-SCREEI!FRAME 4'-8'(TYP.) MIX SOIL AND RIPRAP w
ATTACHED TO CHANN0. COMPLETELY(SEE NOTES)
BY INTERMITTANT WELDS
_ a
2+D50 J
3'min NOTES:
/.�` 1.SOL RIPRAP OETNLS ARE APPUCAB E TO
e /���_��V A\ • �0� �Use 2x4 - �� 1 SLOPED ACIWL LOCATION ON AND UNNS.TO 511E PLAN Z
B / / AY Y mde d . 1Y min L !�/� 4 WTI 35%OF2.MIX APPROVED
NLRB SOIL RAP BY BY VOLUME LIME of
STEEL RESTRICTOR PLATE for PRIOR TO PIACEM . �
s 8• 0.WALL I l I I stakes J.PUCE STONE-SOIL MIX TO RESULT IN =
SECURELY INTERLOCKED ROCK AT THE DESIGN
a /4 BARS 0 If OC t t / PREPARE COMPACTED THINNESS AND GRADE.COMPACT AND LEVEL
/ ONE-INCH THICK
,n EACH WAY V \ / SUBGRADE PER SPECIFICATIONS 70 ELIMINATE ALL VOIDS AND ROCKS Z z
OD STAKE DETAIL OR PLACE ON UNDISTURBED SUCRADE PROJECRNG ABOVE E DES RIPRAP TOP GRATE. wj w
TRASH RACK \ / 15'RCP OUTLET PIPE Q
4.CRIMP OR TACHIFY MUCH OR USE APPROVED
w �� HYDROMULCH AS CANED FOR IN THE PLANS Q Z o
SPECIFICATIONS 3 z
4' 26r 12'OPENING a
COVER W 1OD-YR ORIFICE=5 rO HOLE EL•'I� Z z
N STE0.PLATE, NV ORIFICE A � p o
ANCHOR TO PUTS CLOSE MESH GRATE, a } z
o, CONCRETE LOCKABLE&REMOVABLE /� J m
/ � \OUTLET RESTRICTOR PLATE DETAIL 4 SOIL RIPRAP WITH EROSION CONTROL FABRIC J � o
C9 C9 NVI IU SCALE Cg Cg NOT TO SCALE _
w �
2.6r o
B
Plan View
i
HOT DIPPED GALVANIZED
PERFORATED WATER
z
WATER QUALITY ROW STAINLESS STEEL �
CONTROL PLATE SUPPORT BARS o
26r NO.93 STAINLESS
c�
STEEL(U.S.FILTER-
OR EQUAL)WIRES
0
1 xeFD/1We UxCER ix[xwscr
`o arwNsox a
FLOW Crff OF FM 001MB,00IM nD
BrrnoniTTmA,�rED FLOW UTILITY PLAN APPROVAL ` An
o WELDING ALL AROUND 0.17- �-0.17' $4�6
APPROVED: �V\0'tJC)
Section B-B-Plan View SECTION C-C CITY ENGINEER DATE ` 5
U
CHECKED BY:
WATER&WASTEWATER UTUTY DATE
rm Vro a IILNNf a
1 POND OUTLET STRUCTURE •ieK suexim xx/xx x
CHECKED BY:
_ C9 C9 NOT TO SCALE sTORMwATeR UTILITY DATE 9g
CHECKED BY: sme+Fttiui ams.Y wh
o luo
PARKS&RECREATION DATE aec n/z0/zms
Know what's below. .a.m c03as5
N Cal before you dig. CHECKED BY: TRAFFIC ENGINEER DATE oCOWR&DET LS.drg
n aaer 16 a 16
o CHECKED BY: ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNER DATE C1 6
z